ViewsWatchersBrowse |
Henry Jeanneret
b.31 Dec 1802 St. Mary Colechurch, London, Middlesex, England
d.12 Jun 1886 Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England
Family tree▼ (edit)
m. 9 May 1801
(edit)
m. 11 Dec 1832
Facts and Events
_PHOTO: Addresses:Oxford, England 1817-22
References:Gibbney HJ, Smith AG. Biographical register 1788-1939. Canberra : Australian Dictionary of Biography, 1987
JEANNERET, Henry, 71, Great Tichfield-street, Portland-place, and 48, Queen's road, St. John's-wood, Lond. — M.D. Edin. 1825 ; L.S.A. 1824 ; L.R.C.S.Edin. 1825 ; B.L. Paris, 1822. Before the Judge of the County Court of Gloucestershire, holden at the Shirehall, Gloucester, on Thursday the 20th day of June, 1861. Henry Jeanneret, formerly of No. 15, George-street, Bryanston-square, then of Glen Cottage, Maida-hill, Paddington, then of No. 19, St. Petersburg-place, Bayswater, • then of No. 19, Brompton-row, all in the county of Middlesex, Physician and Patentee, then of Charlton Kings, near Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, then of No, 2, Grafton Terrace, then of No. 11, York Terrace, then of No. 7, Hewlett-street, then of No. 4, Blenheim Terrace, and late of No, 3, Carlton-street, all in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, Physician, sued as Henry Jeaneret. THE LONDON GAZETTE, MAY 14, 1861. Further, the resultant Inquiry revealed the assistance provided by the Anglican catechist Robert Clarke, who was also in some conflict with Dr Jeanneret. The recurring historical mistake, challenged by Reynolds, has been to assume that the Aborigines themselves were essentially apolitical and that effective action was ultimately a white initiated affair. In this interpretation, the Aborigines become pawns in the white world of realpolitik as Clarke manipulates their grievances for his own ends.14 Except for the period from 1839 to 1845, Robert Clarke lived with the Tasmanian Aboriginals as catechist from 1834 until his death while living at Oyster Cove in 1850. There have been varied judgments on Clarke, both in praise and condemnation but, as with Knopwood, they seem unfairly strong. Some of the contemporary criticisms made of him actually may speak in his favour of providing, by the standards of the time, a fairly flexible and culturally adaptable Gospel message with a comparatively relaxed attitude to some of the associated British Christian cultural practices. Robinson complained that ‘when his eyes are open … he is an inveterate smoker and is very uncleanly in his person.’ Governor Denison found him ‘incapable of exercising any proper control over the natives’.15 Jeanneret accused him of cruel treatment of the children in his care but, given the Aboriginal view of this particular commandant, even this accusation could disguise a virtue. One boss complained to Hobart of Clarke’s commitment to teach the Gospel first. This referred to the rigorous contemporary debate throughout British Christendom between those who believed preaching and understanding the Gospel must come before civilisation and cultural change could occur and those who believed the Gospel could never be heard until primitive habits had been abandoned. Clarke had an ally in Arthur and indeed among the most prominent evangelical thinking at the time. The Colonial Secretary’s reply upheld the view of the catechist: ‘ In truth, the inculcation of the first principles of the religion … of the Bible, is the most effectual mode of introducing civilisation.’ And there was to be no interference with him.16 One Tasmanian Aboriginal woman, Bessy Clarke, told Bonwick some years after Clarke’s death that he was ‘a very good man. All the blackfellows love him.’ 17 Plomley, on the other hand, sees him as the worst of a bad bunch who ‘stands out as an incubus whose behaviour was seriously detrimental to the welfare of all’.18 God’s Own Country? The Anglican Church and Tasmanian Aborigines ©James Boyce 2001 References
|